317 comments:

Eugene Volokh has recently made some great posts on this subject. He argues, convincingly, that no regulation being proposed would have done anything to prevent the Sandy Hook tragedy, nor will they have any appreciable effect on gun violence.

I wonder, when will the nannies turn their sights on video games? Mental health issues have already been cast aide as inconvenient distractions to the agenda, but there are reports out there that Adam Lanza was positively obsessed with violent video games. Video games must be controlled! We need common sense regulations!

I am not confident that schools would be safer if the group we saw assembled at the Capitol in Madison last year were armed. Those are the people who are supposed to take out a crazed gunman? Fat liberal entitled middle aged mostly white women and a few holdover hippies. Get a grip people. I can't think of one teacher I ever had who would be competent keeping, bearing, or fergodsakes using a weapon.

"You'll shoot yer eye out" indeed.

The only way this idea makes any sense is to have an armed officer in the school. That does not guarantee safety, but at least the Madison singer crowd wouldn't be accidentally shooting off their own or others' body parts.

The blood of the children of Newton, Connecticut isn't on the hands of the NRA, gun owners of the nation or the 2nd amendment, it's on the hands of politicians that decided to make schools in Connecticut "gun free zones".

Obama is not interested in 'being in touch' with America, he's interested in our changing to think and act more like him.

Interestingly there's evidence he is actually capable of doing this, at least among Democrats. Consider the change in same sex marriage approval before and after he changed his public stance on that topic.

Part of the Democrats' problem is that they are trying to ban an idea rather than a weapon and - rather in the same vein - it is a lot about group identification.

I saw an article that suggested that the AR-15 type of rifle design never would have become as popular as it is, but for the "assault weapons" ban.

I think the same holds for SUV's. The Democrats have only expressed disapproval for pick-up based SUV's and have not tried to ban them, but I am sure that there are a lot of people driving them just to push back, even though they may not even realize that is what they are doing.

And if the Democrats did try to ban them, they would face the same problem as they do with "assault eapons." Precisely what constitutes a "SUV"?

This is a really good article, I thought. It addresses how police and teachers need to work together to formulate plans, practice drills, etc, much like we do to prepare for fires.

“How many kids have been killed by school fire in all of North America in the past 50 years?", the article asks. "Kids killed... school fire... North America... 50 years... How many? Zero. That’s right. Not one single kid has been killed by school fire anywhere in North America in the past half a century. Now, how many kids have been killed by school violence?”

Once you click through to the numbers and ignore the spin, they're pretty interesting. First of all, every single one of the policies mentioned by Gallup -- increasing police presence at schools, increasing government spending for mental health, and reducing images of violence in the media, banning assault weapons, arming school officials, and not printing the names of the shooters -- are considered to be very or somewhat effective approaches by substantial majorities.

Increasing police presence at schools, increasing government spending for mental health, and reducing images of violence in the media are the three policies considered to be most effective. 63% think that banning assault weapons would be very (42%) or somewhat (21%) effective. 64% think that arming at least one school official would be very (34%) or somewhat (30%) effective.

So this poll shows strong support for an assault weapons ban. It also shows support for a number of other policies.

Since most who seek education degrees to become teachers or administrators are liberal, my guess is you will find few who will get a CCW permit, much less be willing to use a firearm even in self defense.

BarrySanders20 said... I can't think of one teacher I ever had who would be competent keeping, bearing, or fergodsakes using a weapon.

"You'll shoot yer eye out" indeed.

The only way this idea makes any sense is to have an armed officer in the school.

This would be the wrong approach, as would trying to train people specifically for this purpose. We should allow people to carry if they meet certain training and psychological criteria and are motivated to do so. Arming all adults is a mistake.

The primary value of the CCW in schools policy that the nut won't know how many he's facing. The element of doubt could be sufficient that the murderer would pick a different target even if it's only a couple per school. If not the shooter will have to act more defensively which should reduce casualties. How many armed teachers and who they are should be strictly confidential.

Just a few months ago most of ya'll were saying that teachers are nothing but thugs and leeches who are too dumb to do their job, but now ya wanna give 'em assault weapons while at work? I ain't saying it is a bad idea to arm our teachers...as someone else pointed out, Israel has been doing so for years....just find it interesting how often the Etch-a-Sketch gets shaken up 'round these parts.

At least Barry is consistent with his earlier viewpoints...he flat-outs says he wouldn't trust any teacher with any weapon, let alone a gun. Given the stuff that was said during the protests & recall efforts, how can any of ya argue against him?

It's pretty amazing that a lot of people seem to believe that an assault weapons ban would be "very effective" at curtailing these sorts of incidents. I'd be interested to have someone explain this line of thought.

It's pretty amazing that a lot of people seem to believe that an assault weapons ban would be "very effective" at curtailing these sorts of incidents. I'd be interested to have someone explain this line of thought.

Allow me. These people are ignorant. To start, most would not even know what an assault weapon is (as defined in the law).

Purple P makes a good point. If you saw "Waiting for Superman," you know that unions fight the removal of incompetent teachers. Perhaps if unions knew those failing teachers were going to be armed, they'd reconsider their approach. Strikes me as a win-win.

Just a few months ago most of ya'll were saying that teachers are nothing but thugs and leeches who are too dumb to do their job, but now ya wanna give 'em assault weapons while at work?

I'm skeptical about whether they'll actually take advantage of the opportunity to arm themselves. But if they do, I'm more confident that they'll defend themselves and their charges successfully if a crazed gunman gets in than I am that they'll teach successfully-- because they'll have an incentive to do the one, and they lack an incentive to do the other.

If teachers were as invulnerable to bullets as they are to firing, it would be a different story.

What we should do is realize that there is very little that can be done. Some things are so random and senseless that structuring our lives around the possibility of them makes all of us prisoners of fear. We should take reasonable precautions, like we already do, and recognize that safety is only part of our lives. Being 100 percent safe would mean never doing anything.

Every gun used by the Conn shooter was aquired legally by his mother. From this we can infer the following:

a) The mother obeyed the law in acquiring the weapons she wanted, and was able to own legally. Any new bans on particular styles of weapons that doesn't outright ban all weapons would not have affected guns being in a house in a similar situation.

b) Banning the mentally ill from owning weapons would not have mattered in the least. The Conn shooter did not legally acquire any of the weapons he used. And as has been reported, he attempted to purchase a rifle in the week prior, and was denied. He commited murder (of his own mother, Charles Manson level of evil) to acquire them.

c) You cannot ban all guns due to the 2nd Amemndment of the United States Constitution.

The germane question is: Is it possible to eliminate the possibility of someone commiting mass murder? The answer to that question is most definately 'No'. Mass murder is achieveable by many means, whether by hands, knife, gun, bomb, poison, etc....

It is not possible to prevent mass murder attempts, there will always be someone who is bent on evil. How can we stop those that are determined to do evil?

You can either rely on lawful punishment as a deterrent, but a suicidal person will not be deterred by threat of jail.

You can try to preemptively weed out anyone who may be a risk, but without tyrannical intrusion into the lives of every living person, this will not work either. (Although there are always those in favor of tyranny provided they are the tyrant)

That leaves the last option of stopping the killers when they come out in the open and attempt their murder sprees. Given that you cannot stop a gun wielding murderer with a 911 phone call, fists, knives, platitudes, conflict resolution, you need to be on equal or better footing in the confontation.

Is arming ALL teachers with guns a good solution to this? No it is not. Many will refuse, many would be incompetent with a weapon.

Would arming self selected volunteers, provide them with training, and publicize that fact be effective?

I for one think it would be.

1st - You will have people on premises that will be able to neutralize a murder, either by killing him, or making him disarm.

2nd - At the least you would force him to take cover, allowing more time for evactuation of innocents.

3rd - If the armed personnel, and training, are publicized and well know, and indeed lauded, the prevention aspect comes into play as a likely murderer is not interested in hard targets.

4th - Teachers do not need to be equipped with military style assault weapons to be effective. A faculty of teachers would be an effective deterrent if 1 out of 5 were just carrying and trained in using a pistol.

"So if public school teachers would be required to carry weapons, would they gain more respect from those on the right? No more hogs at the trough comments?

"And yes this was a common phrase here in Wisconsin during the protests."

purplepenquin said...

"Just a few months ago most of ya'll were saying that teachers are nothing but thugs and leeches who are too dumb to do their job, but now ya wanna give 'em assault weapons while at work? I ain't saying it is a bad idea to arm our teachers...as someone else pointed out, Israel has been doing so for years....just find it interesting how often the Etch-a-Sketch gets shaken up 'round these parts."

First, I have not seen anyone say that ALL teachers should be armed, idiots.

Second, the derision was directed at the PROTESTING teachers which was most assuredly not ALL teachers, idiots.

Third, the teachers who were protesting are more likely than not the same folks who get the flop sweats at the idea of a gun. They are not the ones who would be voluntarily arming themselves, idiots.

Had Lanza walked into the school with a baseball bat and started smashing skulls, would any of the teaching or admin staff been able to subdue him? I'm curious since it took police 20 minutes to arrive, I imagine he could have done a significant amount of damage just using a blunt instrument.

Is the problem the availability of firearms or does this country have an inordinate number of crazed homicidal maniacs that tend to target schools.

It's a hypothetical Allen, I asked the question to point out the lack of respect for public school teachers by those on the right. I'm sure that that lack of respect will continue to be denied after the Conn. massacre.

I said several days ago that I thought that teachers perhaps should start packing since with the proliferation of guns in our society. No amount of new laws will get those guns out of the hands of those who really are hell bent on getting them and using them. As I said, we're an armed society, we may as well look like one and perhaps some children's lives will be saved.

As a liberal I know just how crazy that sounds, but we live in crazy times.

I don't know how Instapundit managed to interpret the poll to conclude "more Americans favor school officials having guns than weapon ban". (Actually I do, Instapundit is dishonest and stupid--a powerful combination) The poll asked what would be more effective. And those two policies were seen to be very effective or somewhat effective in a statistical tie (64 to 63 percent). In fact if you look at the "very effective" numbers, the gun ban is supported 42 to 34% over arming school officials.

I do want to go on record as saying a ban on clips with higher than 10 rounds would not harm anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. Same thing goes for assault rifles and I don't give a fig about terminology, you know what I mean.

I think that it would be good to allow those teachers with concealed carry permits to carry at school. I would (if it were up to me) require that those weapons be carried in holsters on the person's body, secured. No purse holsters or pouch type holster stuck in your pants. If it makes anyone feel better, require/suggest additional training and range time than the permit requires. I wouldn't (if it were me) ask teachers to report that they carry to the school, if they've got a permit they've got one. I would, however, fire someone who was found to have disobeyed the rule about how a gun was carried.

Would this prevent a massacre? Probably not. But it wouldn't hurt anything either. So why not?

Inga said... I do want to go on record as saying a ban on clips with higher than 10 rounds would not harm anyone's 2nd Amendment rights. Same thing goes for assault rifles and I don't give a fig about terminology, you know what I mean.

A bolt action, or lever action rifle without all the scary looking accessories will still be massively effective against an unarmed group of people.

Limiting clips or magazines to 10 rounds does nothing. Obviously you have no experience with such weapons, or you would know the miniscule amount of time it takes to change magazines.

Your proposal does nothing to stop a shooter once he has started killing.

But NO ONE is suggesting that. The only reason for you to even suggest is to try to create this idea of the oppressive conservatives making people do things. Otherwise, there is no reason to even suggest it. I might as well say, "What if guns shot rainbows instead? Would you still oppose guns then?" Your query is wholly disingenuous. It is a dopey hypothetical.

First, I have not seen anyone say that ALL teachers should be armed, idiots.

I don't see the word "all" in my post either.

Oh, sorry. Let me say this in your native language so there is no confusion: I don't see the word "all" in my post either, idiot.

~~~~~~~~

Really, 100% effective? So, you are thinking that the deaths would be zero if a killer used a shotgun or revolver instead?

I mean the ban itself would be 100% effective. Of course people can still get shot with other weapons...tho, I think there is a damn good reason why, as an infantry solider, I was issued an M-16 rifle rather than a .45 pistol....one is far-more effective than the other when it comes to killing lots of people, no?

"Synova, I agree with carrying the guns holstered on their body at all times. Why bother having it locked away in a drawer or purse, when bullets start flying fast access is essential."

I'm more concerned with what I see as the only legitimate concern about teachers having guns in school, and that's the possibility of the kids getting access to them. A purse holster is a great idea, normally. Take it to work and toss it in your desk drawer... just not if your "work" is herding 8 year olds.

John, you're right I don't know a thing about guns, but I do know that our children and grandchildren are now going to be the prize that insane gunmen will be reaching for on their merry go round of madness, so they can go down in a blaze of glory, blood of innocents and lots of notoriety.

The only reason that children and grandchildren are now going to be the prize that insane gunmen will be reaching for is because they are kept in schools that a crazed person knows is a gun free zone. They have no defense.

Inga said... John, you're right I don't know a thing about guns, but I do know that our children and grandchildren are now going to be the prize that insane gunmen will be reaching for on their merry go round of madness, so they can go down in a blaze of glory, blood of innocents and lots of notoriety.

So then perhaps all multiple shot clips should be banned, better?

So you are in favor of tyranny then by allowing the government to disarm its populace?

See, I too can play that game of argument in bad faith.

If you care to re-read my post, and understand what is meant by Bolt Action, or Lever Action rifles you will note that these are single shot manual weapons.

Once again, to reiterate my point, Any and All weapons are going to be extremely effective instruments of murder when used against an Unarmed group of people.

The only way to ammeliorate these events is to deny wannabe murders UNARMED targets.

In litigation, it is considered bad practice to cite a precedent for a narrow point that is ostensibly helpful to your case, if the central holding of the precedent is bad for your case. There are two reasons for this: (1) you alert the judge to a precedent that is bad for your case, and (2) unless you made it very clear in your brief that you are only citing the precedent for a narrow point and its central holding does not help your case -- and why would you do that -- you are likely to undermine your credibility with the court.

Come to think of it, armed union members at rallies would probably get a little more respect too. Same with OWS. When cops see a little return fire once in a while they make think twice about clubbing or macing someone.

Disingenuous jackass, notice that I was responding to both comments by you and Inga?

I noticed that not only was your namecalling addressed towards both of us, neither of the quotes you copied from us had the word "ALL" in it.

Looking back on this thread you've done nothing but call names and build strawmen, and haven't said one iota about the actual issue (Is it a good idea to let teachers carry firearms while at work?)

In conclusion, it looks like you are just trolling and have no intentions of engaging in a good-faith discussion about this issue. Feel free to prove me wrong with your next message...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Limiting magazine size has no effect when dealing with an UNARMED group of people.

I strongly disagree. Wasn't there an incident where the shooter was rushed by unarmed people while he was changing magazines? If he had a higher-capacity one then he wouldn't have had to reload at that moment, no?

(That said, I think a ban on magazine size would be wrong for other reasons. But if a magic wand was waved and they all disappeared forever then it would be far-far more difficult for one person to shoot many people)

Please explain why you prefer to keep children undefended so the next mass murderer also does not face any opposition to his murderous intentions

Inga said... John, no I don't want to disarm you. Aren't there guns that shoot one bullet per one trigger pull?

It is illegal in the United States to own guns that fire more than 1 bullet per trigger pull. Those are called machine guns and have been banned since 1934.

Every gun used in every mass shooting you've ever read about in this country only fires 1 bullet per trigger pull.

Semi-Auto guns automatically chamber a new round after the previous round was fired. They still require you to pull the trigger every time you want to fire a round.

Semi-Auto's come in all shapes and sizes. You can get rifles of all different caliber (size of bullet), handguns of all different caliber, Shotguns, etc....

They are all made in Semi-Auto versions.

There are also weapons that are not Semi-Auto (bolt action, lever action, pump shotguns) These all require you to manually chamber a new round after the previous was fired. Manually chambering a new round requires less than 1 second of time.

Even in your best case scenario with a breakaway single barrel shotgun that can hold no more than 1 round in the gun at a time. You can still fire the gun at a rate of 10 rounds a minute.

The police in Conn took 20 minutes to arrive on scene. Do the math.

The key component to this situation is not what kind of weapons were used, what caliber, how many rounds each gun holds.

The key component is that the shooter was able to find a large grouping of Unarmed innocents to target for mass slaughter.

An "assault rifle" is a military weapon and were already illegal for civilians to own. Congress critters came up with the awkward designation "assault weapon" because what they were trying to ban were not "assault rifles;" just regular rifles built on a similar pattern, but without automatic firing capability.

Wasn't there an incident where the shooter was rushed by unarmed people while he was changing magazines? If he had a higher-capacity one then he wouldn't have had to reload at that moment, no?

It would be nice to have a cite. I do not doubt that this has happened in the past.

But, you can't exactly expect a group of 6 year olds to subdue an adult in a mass rush. Nor can you expect a shooter to wait for the faculty to gather in enough numbers to be effective in a mass rush.

Arming and training the willing faculty at schools will remove the need to rush a shooter during the .75 of a second that they are chaing clips.

Arming and training the willing faculty will do more to prevent these events from even occuring as a potential shooter will always prefer targets that cannot shoot back.

There are reasons that mass shootings don't occur at Police Stations, Military Bases (note to the peanut gallery, Hassan Nadal chose to do his murder spree in a 'Gun Free' caffeteria on a military base, and not at a weapons depot), NRA gatherings, Gun shows, Firing Ranges, etc, etc, etc,.

Can anyone identify a single mass shooting that has occured against and armed and trained populace?

"I noticed that not only was your namecalling addressed towards both of us, neither of the quotes you copied from us had the word "ALL" in it."

Moron, Inga said EVERY teacher. Every = All. And you said, "...most of ya'll were saying that teachers are nothing but thugs and leeches..." "Nothing but" means all are the same thing. Jesus Christ, there are other ways of referring to every member of a group than saying all.

And you wonder why you are referred to as an idiot? Stop writing stupid things and I will stop calling you an idiot.

Someone mentioned having an armed official at schools. There are over 100,000 schools in the USA. There are 800,000 police officers on the streets in the USA today. The training that they go through is rigorous and time consuming. If we wanted to hire a armed official for each school, only 1 per school, we would need at least 100,000 more peace officers, with extensive training. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want to trust Sister Susie defending my children against an attacker at a school. These days it is hard enough for the police departments to find "qualified" candidates to replenish their ranks. Do we want someone less qualified protecting our children? I think not.

With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

Seems to me Victoria from Pasadena makes an excellent point re putting a police officer in each school==there are not enough police officers to fill the gap now and it would bankrupt many small districts

When cops see a little return fire once in a while they make think twice about clubbing or macing someone.

Sigh. Spoken by someone I suspect has never faced hostile fire. I suspect you're not old enough to have experienced the riots of the 1960's in cognizant fashion, like the 1967 version in Detroit. Opposition snipers were "solved" by M48 tanks and .50 M2 Machine Gun fire.

It's not the guns that matter, or if they are carried...it is the attitude of the carriers.

I understand your concern; however, as it is now, the kids are undefended. Teachers who are already CCW holders who undergo subsequent training would be an improvement over nothing. If the concern is about a teacher flipping out, that risk is already there. Guns or not, teachers are already in a position to do terrible things if they so desired.

If "Sister Susie" is a CCW holder who is comfortable with extra responsibility of caring at school and demonstrates proficiency via the additional training, why would you be more concerned?

What I find interesting is the number of people who are scared mindless by the presence of a gun (and I am not saying that is you Victoria) who have no idea how many times a day they walk by a CCW holder.

These days it is hard enough for the police departments to find "qualified" candidates to replenish their ranks. Do we want someone less qualified protecting our children? I think not.

Do we wnat no one protecting our children? That is the situation we have now.

You do not have to 'hire' 1 person per school to take on this role. Current staff can perform this function. I would wager that there is a high percentage of teachers that already own weapons, and probably already have CCW permits where their states allow.

Despite the snark in this thread, not all teachers are union peaceniks hippie type goons. You only have to look at the anecdote of the teacher who died shielding her students with her own body to understand that if given the opportunity to come to the defense of their students many teachers would jump at the chance.

The current status quo does not allow them the option. Thus the teacher died in vain, the students she was protecting died as well. Had she been armed and trained, would she have succeeded in stopping the murderer? That we cannot know. The only thing that is certain is that she never had the opportunity.

So what's so wrong with 10 round clips? Why must 30 or 100 round clips be commonplace in our society? Who are we fighting? Do all the bad guys out there now have these clips? Why has I been legal for them to own these clips? (did the "assault weapons" ban ban these high round clips?) because the "assault weapons" ban was allowed to expire in 2004?

I don't think most liberals don't want to take anyone's guns away from them, nor does anyone want to repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Anyway:Vice Principal Joel Myrick held his Colt .45 point blank to the high school boy's head. . "I said 'why are you shooting my kids?'

The shooter was Luke Woodham. Woodham had slit his mother's throat then grabbed a .30-30 lever action deer rifle. He packed the pockets of his trench coat with ammo and headed off to Pearl High School, in Pearl, Miss.

The moment Myrick heard shots, he ran to his truck. He unlocked the door, removed his gun from its case, removed a round of bullets from another case, loaded the gun and went looking for the killer. "I've always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened," said Myrick, who has since become Principal of Corinth High School, Corinth

To date, there are multiple examples of school personell stopping school shootings in progress.

Nonapod said...It's pretty amazing that a lot of people seem to believe that an assault weapons ban would be "very effective" at curtailing these sorts of incidents. I'd be interested to have someone explain this line of thought.

purplepenquin said...

I'm pretty sure that the line-of-thought is that such a ban would be 100% effective. And if it really worked that way (wave a magic wand and they all disappear) then they would be right.

So, if by some kind of magic, a ban on certain kinds of weapons was able to result in the absence of these weapons, then the ban would work--at eliminating these weapons. Your ability to point out the obvious is staggering indeed, but the question is whether such a ban would have an effect on school shootings.

VictoriaVery little of police academy training has to do with firearm training. In Israel they have volunteer parents and regular school personnel with basically conceal and carry permit training. They only had to have a school massacre once, decades ago.

In 1966 Charles Whitman shot 45 people at UT with a shotgun and bolt action rifle. He had neither a high-capacity magazine nor an "assault weapon" looking rifle. Those proposed measures are just re-arranging deck chairs for "feel gooders".

Seems to me Victoria from Pasadena makes an excellent point re putting a police officer in each school==there are not enough police officers to fill the gap now and it would bankrupt many small districts

There are plenty of policemen/agents who could be freed up from unproductive drug war work at no additional cost. Are more worried that some college kid might get high than we are that some grade-school kid might get shot?

the question is whether such a ban would have an effect on school shootings.

An effect? Of course it would...like I said before, there is a good reason why I was given a M-16 rifle rather than a revolver pistol while in the Army. An assault rifle is far-far more effective at killing lots of people than a pistol is. I can't beleive that some folks are so defensive about this issue that the can't even bring themselves to admit that.

Ain't saying school shootings would all go away...but to claim there wouldn't be an effect at all (if all those "assault weapons" magically disappeared) is not logical.

This should come as no surprise. Ol' Purple lips is doing What Uncle Joe would do. He just has to find a way around that damn Constitution.

You talking about me when you refer to "Purple lips" or is that the new nickname you have for our President? Hard to keep up with all the various nicknames that people come up with when they can't bring themselves to actually utter a name...

I'm pretty sure that the line-of-thought is that such a ban would be 100% effective. And if it really worked that way (wave a magic wand and they all disappear) then they would be right.

----------------------------------------------

I mean the ban itself would be 100% effective.

----------------------------------------------

Looking back on this thread you've done nothing but call names and build strawmen, and haven't said one iota about the actual issue (Is it a good idea to let teachers carry firearms while at work?)

----------------------------------------------

In conclusion, it looks like you are just trolling and have no intentions of engaging in a good-faith discussion about this issue. Feel free to prove me wrong with your next message...

----------------------------------------------

(That said, I think a ban on magazine size would be wrong for other reasons. But if a magic wand was waved and they all disappeared forever then it would be far-far more difficult for one person to shoot many people)

----------------------------------------------

Please explain why you think I want to keep children undefended.

----------------------------------------------

Yeah, I was thinking exactly that when you accused me of wanting to keep children undefended so the next mass murderer doesn't face any opposition.

Got anything at all to back up your claim that I beleive as such, or are you just another troll like that Matt-guy?

----------------------------------------------

At no point in this thread have you advocated the position that it is a good idea.

All of these statements read to me that you are in favor of an effective ban.

At no time have you come out in favor of arming willing teachers. At no time have you advocated defending our children by any means. It is charitable at best to say that you refuse to take a position one way or another.

In the current world we live in, our children are undefended. With you refusing to take a position, you side with the status quo, thus you are in favor of leaving our children undefended.

Garage--the poll you cited suggests to me that the respondents have no idea what an assault weapons is, except, perhaps it sounds scary. It is probably a random poll, but it is a random poll of random idiots.

This doesn't seem horrible on its face, but I'm curious how many gun show purchases are used in mass shootings in safe white neighborhoods, since we obviously don't give a shit about black kids caught in gang crossfire.

Nono, these very questions are being asked by millions of people all across America. We deserve an answer. Who are we fighting, why do any Americans need to own high capacity clips of over 10 rounds pe clip? The answer is important and may reveal what is behind this fascination with guns and the outrageous fear of 2nd amendment assaults, no pun intended..

Purple Penguin--I submit the reason you were given an M16 was because that was the weapon the army issued to soldiers--you were not issued a pistol because your position did not require it.

Most commanders I knew in Viet Nam required their troopers to keep their weapons on semi auto except for the point man on a patrol. The purpose of automatic fire in small unit tactics is to deep the bad guys heads down while maneuver folks move to get off aimed shots. The indiscriminate use of automatic fire does not result in more kills, but it does run you out of ammunition a lot faster.

Well, Purple, you're right that if all assault weapons disappeared somehow, mass shootings would be more difficult. Given that such a thing will not happen, we are left trying to figure out what to do.

The guns aren't going away. We still have lots of "gun free zones" that do nothing more than provide a lot of easy, helpless targets. As long as such targets exist, we will have more, not less mass killings.

Who are we fighting, why do any Americans need to own high capacity clips of over 10 rounds pe clip?

Because people who like guns like to go to a firing range and have fun firing that type of gun.

Inga, as I said, you're not good at understanding things... in particularly, you're not good at understanding that other people don't agree with you... like all those homos who won't be cuddly liberals.

Inga said...Nono, these very questions are being asked by millions of people all across America. We deserve an answer. Who are we fighting, why do any Americans need to own high capacity clips of over 10 rounds pe clip? The answer is important and may reveal what is behind this fascination with guns and the outrageous fear of 2nd amendment assaults, no pun intended..

"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

This is the reason.

If you cannot understand that the ability to defend against a tyrannical government is a just reason, you cannot understand the 2nd amendment at all.

That is not to say that we now live under tyranny. But to defend against the possibility is the reason.

Once you allow the government to dictate to you the limits to which you are able to defend yourself, you take one further step towards allow such a tyranny to occur.

Owning weapons powerful enough to keep tyrannical rule at bay is the reason.

Hey, why don't respond to where I pointed out you did refer to a whole group? Huh?

I'm sorry kiddo. Do you need some more attention? Ok, I'll be your huckleberry...

In one post (12/20/12 10:08 AM) you said that you weren't refering to me when you said that nobody is saying "ALL teachers should be armed", 'cause you were actually talking to Inga and I was an idiot for thinking you were talking to me...even tho you quoted me when you made your response.

But now you're insisting that you were talking to me with that comment 'cause...well, err, you haven't quite explained why you quickly changed your mind, just that you have and I'm an idiot for thinking you ever meant anything else.

It is obvious that you can't talk about the actual issue being discussed, and instead it appears that you're trying to set a record for how many times the word "idiot" appears in a thread.

The "assault weapons" ban did ban high-capacity magazines produced after the effective date of the legislation. So, of course, the citizens went out to buy all they could before that date, and the manufacturers went into overtime to supply the demand. And since magazines are as long-lasting as guns, we still have a gadzillion high-capacity magazines in people's closets.

BTW, the term is "magazine." The M-1 Garand of WWII was loaded with a clip holding 10 rounds, and I am sure there were other rifles of that vintage using clips, but that is the only one I know of.

There is nothing magic about the number 10, except perhaps that that is as many cartridges as a .45 M1911 can hold without the magazine becoming rather unwieldy.However, many modern .38/9mm. pistol grips will readily hold 15 rounds.

A practical reason for limiting magazines for civilian guns to 15 rounds, is that firing much more than that in rapid succession may overheat and damage the barrel. Plus, of course, wasting ammunition like that gets expensive.

It's interesting that as gun ownership in America has increased, violent crime in America has decreased.In the gun free paradises like Canada and Britain violent crime has increased two fold over the last decade.

The reason I made the original statement was because, at the time, I was thinking specifically about Inga's statement and trusted that you were being honest when you denied making a reference to the "all". When I subsequently checked, I realized I was right the first time so fuck you, you disingenuous asshole. Now, I know better than to trust you to be honest about anything.

So, do you still deny writing, "...most of ya'll were saying that teachers are nothing but thugs and leeches..." and later lying about? Huh?

Oh, and I did address the topic.

First, when I made original post pointing out that you were an idiot. I didn't just call you an idiot, I pointed out WHY you were an idiot.

Second, Victoria presented a reasonable and thought argument that I disagreed with so I replied to her in kind. You tried to paint a broad negative brush across a large group of people and thought you were clever because you recycled the Obama's campaigns "Etch-a-Sketch" bit. I pointed out how you were wrong and accurately described you as an idiot.

You have yet to do anything to convince me otherwise except to add dishonest to your moniker.

Can anyone point me to a definitive classification of what constitutes an "assault weapon."

"Assault weapon" is a term invented and defined by Congress, EMD, so it tends to be slippery. The latest definition I find is here, but as others have noted it essentially comes down to "any semi-automatic gun or rifle that Congress thinks looks scary made by a manufacturer that hasn't ponied up enough to Congress to reap preferential treatment".

Inga said...Not at all McTriumph, i'm asking why does a ban on high capacity magazines assault the 2nd Amendment?

For all intent and purposes, there is no difference between four 10 capacity magazines and one 40 capacity magazine, other that nano seconds it take to change and the fact that high capacity magazines have a better chance of jamming.

For all intent and purposes, there is no difference between four 10 capacity magazines and one 40 capacity magazine, other that nano seconds it take to change and the fact that high capacity magazines have a better chance of jamming.

Ain't saying school shootings would all go away...but to claim there wouldn't be an effect at all (if all those "assault weapons" magically disappeared) is not logical.

Actually it is logical. If I wanted to clear out a room packed full of unarmed people the ideal weapon would be a 12 gauge pump action. You can do about if not as much mayhem as a Bushmaster, particularly if you have 20 minutes of police free time to do it.

Then again as I said earlier, you could leave a path of destruction in a school with a baseball bat if you have 20 minutes to run amok.

Inga--High capacity magazines are useful in combat but there are some mechanical issues associated with high capacity magazines--the round are fed by a spring and too many rounds will cause the spring to malfunction, mistime the feeding time, and cause the weapons to jam.

That, of course, doesn't answer your question about banning high capacity magazines. I would respond to your concern as follows--a perpetrator who wishes to do harm to an unarmed population does not need a high capacity magazine. All a killer needs is some degree of manual dexterity and practice and you can reload ANY weapon in seconds--especially if no one is shooting back at you.

High capacity magazines are simply, IMO, a stalking horse for even more restrictions. banning them will not increase public safety one iota.

purple penguin: "An effect? Of course it would...like I said before, there is a good reason why I was given a M-16 rifle rather than a revolver pistol while in the Army. An assault rifle is far-far more effective at killing lots of people than a pistol is. I can't beleive that some folks are so defensive about this issue that the can't even bring themselves to admit that. "

The Germans invented assualt weapons because they changed their tactics. In WWI everyone had more powerful standard weapons (US was 30 cal). Problem was pistols are good to less than 50 yards and standard calibers were heavy but effective to 800 yards. In the stormtrooper (assualt) tactics, the Germans realized they needed a medium caliber that was effective from 25 meters out to 300 meters. A medium caliber assault weapon allowed more ammo to be carried which meant a successful attack could go on longer before resupply.

Assault weapons are NOT a replacement for a pistol. In combat more US troops and all NCOs and officers carry both. The medium caliber ammo is effective at meium ranges just like standard caliber ammo is effective out to twice the range. Weapons design is tied to tactics and how a weapon will be employed. You don't engage long-range targets with assault weapons.

I want right to own grenades, they are so cute and small and look like pineapples, adorbs.

Men do like blowing things up. It's a part of male behavior.

I would expect that there are millions of men out there who'd love to blow up a tree stump or some pile of garbage with a grenade, yet they would never think of using that grenade to harm another person.

As someone who thinks the 2d amendment protects individuals' rights and is not simply about the Nat Guard, I've got to say that "novelty value" or "fun at the shooting range" aren't compelling arguments against limiting magazine capacity.

Tactically, if magazine size is really no big deal, why not be willing to compromise on that in order to keep the right to own guns secure?

Inga said...OK, now I get it, because those bad guys who do home invasions usually invade in groups of more than 10, so a 10 round clip won't do the job.

More disengeniousness, and ignorance.

Not every bullet fired is going to hit its target when used in self defense.

A home invader using a gun that has a 15 round clip (even if illegal) is going to have an advantage over someone who is limited to a 6 shot revolver.

A tyrannical government that wants you to be disarmed is going to come in groups larger than 10, or 30, or 100.

My right to defend myself against all threats, home invaders or others, by being able to have more rounds in a gun than any theoretical limit you need to make yourself feel good is not going to change the fact that I do not plan to use those weapons in criminal activity.

You really do not understand this issue at all do you?

Are you unable to conceptualize the fact that weapons are an equalizing force between those that intend to do harm, and their intended victims?

There are people that are bent on doing harm, both criminal, and power seeking. Look not only at this country, but around the world.

Just because you cannot fathom a need for self defense, does not mean that there is not a need for self defense.

The desire to ban classes of weapons because you fear them does not mean that those weapons do not have a legitimate use.

A clip a device of spring steel that grips the cartridges which are otherwise exposed. A clip holding more than 10 rounds reliably would be difficult to design and manufacture, and in any case would be awkward to handle.

At no point in this thread have you advocated the position that it is a good idea.

Now that you mention it, I have yet to see you make such an actual statement about it being good either. In fact, not even our hostess has said how she actually feels about this idea...so does that mean (in your eyes) that you&her both prefer to see children undefended so they can get murdered?

*shrug*

My comments about a ban on magazines is based on someone else asking if anyone could explain the line of thought behind such a ban. I clearly stated I am not in favor of such a ban, but instead was trying to shed some light on other peoples' point-of-views.

To clear it up: I've been a long-time strong supporter of Second Amendment rights and have always beleived that "gun free" zones are a very bad idea. I beleive that allowing workers (which includes teachers) to carry while on the job would have a huge effect in protecting against mass shootings, but there are additional safety issues I would be concerned about in schools that wouldn't necessarily apply to other workplaces. (ex: keeping a pistol in an unlocked desk drawer isn't automatically a bad idea when working in a small office, but I don't think that would be prudent for a teacher in a grade school.) Some rules for schools (and other workplaces that involve children) would still have to be in effect. I also beleive that there would have to be a huge education/information campaign before a lot of (most?) Americans would be comfortable with the idea of people carrying firearms while working with kids.

And PS to Matt: yes, I noticed that after you were scolded for being a troll you finally made one post that had no namecalling at all in it. Goooooood boy! Here is a cookie.

"Are you unable to conceptualize the fact that weapons are an equalizing force between those that intend to do harm, and their intended victims?"

^This.^

I find calls to ban guns sexist as, on average, men are physically stronger than women. Guns are strength equalizers and restraining orders are generally not effective against attacks unless you can incapacitate someone via paper cuts..

Also consider that restrictions on gun ownership were intended to keep minorities disarmed and well...

I have a deep distrust of those who passionately want to ban guns. (The "casual" anti-gun nuts is more ignorant than malicious.)

purplepenquin said...At no point in this thread have you advocated the position that it is a good idea.

Now that you mention it, I have yet to see you make such an actual statement about it being good either. In fact, not even our hostess has said how she actually feels about this idea...so does that mean (in your eyes) that you&her both prefer to see children undefended so they can get murdered?

You are either bad at reading, or an outright liar. As you provide not cite, I will for you:

"John DeTombe said...

Would arming self selected volunteers, provide them with training, and publicize that fact be effective?

I for one think it would be.

1st - You will have people on premises that will be able to neutralize a murder, either by killing him, or making him disarm.

2nd - At the least you would force him to take cover, allowing more time for evactuation of innocents.

3rd - If the armed personnel, and training, are publicized and well know, and indeed lauded, the prevention aspect comes into play as a likely murderer is not interested in hard targets.

4th - Teachers do not need to be equipped with military style assault weapons to be effective. A faculty of teachers would be an effective deterrent if 1 out of 5 were just carrying and trained in using a pistol.

Chip in answer to your question about magazine size is that yielding on the issue just leaves the door open to ban another thing. Ok so instead of a thirty round clip I just use three 10 round. Switching clips and chambering takes what, 3-4 seconds? 6-7 if you're a butterfingers?

So then what? A ban on semi automatics? So now I'm stuck with a revolver and five speedloaders.

I view much of gun control like liberals view restrictions on abortion. Require an ultrasound of the fetus is verboten but liberals want mental health checks to buy a gun. Partial birth abortion is just fine but a 15 round clip is monstrous.

If restricting magazine size actually would have an effect I would be all for it but the reality is it is just another knee jerk reaction that has only a cosmetic effect.

There is a parallel here with the EPA and regulations on emissions on coal-fired power plants. No level of emission control is ever deemed enough. The goal-posts are constantly being moved with newer, prohibitively expensive regulations. But of course the objective isn't to make coal-fired power plants "environmentally safe" at all--it's to bankrupt them and force everyone to rely on wind-mills, etc. So NO amount of "compliance" is ever enough for long. But of course, the left can't help themselves, eventually they let slip their true aims as those calling for the out-right ban of all fire-arms havealready done. In the case of coal-fired power-plants it was Obama himself. Remember his statement that anyone wanting to build a new plant would go bankrupt if he had his way. The mask ALWAYS comes off sooner or later with the left--they really can't help themselves..

That is EXACTLY what I thought when you claimed I prefer to allow children to be undefended. I flat-out said that I wasn't in favor of banning such magazines, but you either didn't read that or (like Matt) you are choosing to lie about what I said.

*shrug*

Either way, I've been clear enough now...haven't I? Or are you still gonna insist that I prefer for murderers to kill school children unhindered?

~~~~~~~~~~

I contradicted a statement you made and explained why.

No, you didn't. You claimed I said something (that people are saying that ALL teachers should be armed), but when it was pointed out that I didn't say such a thing you called me an idiot for not knowing that you were only addressing Inga with that comment.

But now you're claiming that I did say such a thing and your "proof" is me pointing out that some folks were saying that teachers are nothing but thugs and leeches.

Spinspnspinspin...not only are you a troll, but you're a dizzy lil' troll. Own it.

Meanwhile, it is being said that since you haven't flat-out stated your opinion on this issue that proves you want to see kids die unprotected....got anything to say about that or is it going unchallenged 'cause that actually is your opinion? Please clarify.

Fair enough, Col. Angus. Of course, I'm also in favor of bans on partial-birth abortions.

I don't reject slippery-slope arguments out of hand, but I also think that it's usually necessary to agree on some sort of seemingly arbitrary lines.

One aspect of gun policy that seems important but doesn't get much attention is the importance of federalism. If "something must be done", how about increasing the penalties for violating the law against interstate sales of firearms? That way if blue-staters want more gun laws they can have them, while red-staters remain secure in their rights to self-defense.

Interstate sales limit the states' ability to enforce different standards. Yes, they're illegal, but the penalties could be raised. This would satisfy the demand for action w/o violating the 2d amendment.

"John DeTombe said... It is illegal in the United States to own guns that fire more than 1 bullet per trigger pull. Those are called machine guns and have been banned since 1934."

See what I mean? Every single bloody discussion thread features someone -- often one of the good guys, yet -- trotting out this same canard!

I guess I should just give up. But for the record: No it's not illegal, and no they aren't banned. (They are, admittedly, highly regulated but even fairly anti-gun states like, oh, say, Connecticut don't outright ban them.)

I saw the same thing you mentioned with the arsenic in water issue from 2001. As Clinton was leaving office, he severely lowered the acceptable levels. Bush entered office and immediately undid them and was declared as anti-science and was accused of wanting people to drink poisoned water.

The Bush Administration noted that the largest study on arsenic in water was currently underway and would be finished in the fall. At that time, they would review the results and act on the recommendations.

The report reached his desk on September 12, 2001. As folks might recall, there were bigger fish to fry at that point. The report recommended the standards Clinton had implemented. So, what did the vile, anti-science Bush do now that he had the cover of 9/11 to bury the report and do nothing? He implemented the recommended standards.

And the kicker, which is why your comment caused me to remember this incident, the environmental groups who championed the new standards immediately declared them not good enough.

And so began my journey to where I am today: I will not vote for a liberal.

purplepenquin said... You are either bad at reading, or an outright liar

That is EXACTLY what I thought when you claimed I prefer to allow children to be undefended. I flat-out said that I wasn't in favor of banning such magazines, but you either didn't read that or (like Matt) you are choosing to lie about what I said.

Banning/not banning magazines has nothing to do with being in favor of the arming of school personnel.

You made no statement in favor of arming school personnel until I pointed that fact out to you.

Either way, I've been clear enough now...haven't I? Or are you still gonna insist that I prefer for murderers to kill school children unhindered?

Once you came out and stated that you were in favor of that, I thanked you for your clarification. Care to retract this or shall I pull up the comment I made specifically on this? Oh, I wont wait, here it is:

John DeTombe said...purplepenguin said...

I beleive that allowing workers (which includes teachers) to carry while on the job would have a huge effect in protecting against mass shootings

It is good to see this, as it is the logical position.

Thank you for clarifying.

12/20/12 11:59 AM

You have not acknowledged the fact that you were wrong through ignorance, or outright lied when you stated unequivocably that I had not taken the positon in favor of arming school personnel.

"Second, the derision was directed at the PROTESTING teachers which was most assuredly not ALL teachers, idiots."

You still have not addressed.

purplepenguin said...

"No, you didn't. You claimed I said something (that people are saying that ALL teachers should be armed), but when it was pointed out that I didn't say such a thing you called me an idiot for not knowing that you were only addressing Inga with that comment."

You are correct. The first statement was for Inga. The second, the one you ignored, was for you. I apologize for the confusion, idiot.

purplepenguin said...

"Meanwhile, it is being said that since you haven't flat-out stated your opinion on this issue that proves you want to see kids die unprotected....got anything to say about that or is it going unchallenged 'cause that actually is your opinion? Please clarify."

Wait, do you want my opinion or opinion on whether or not I should have an opinion?

By the way, nothing about three people finding you to be dishonest and/or an idiot?